.
Since its establishment in 1934 the SNP has had as its raison d’etre the pursuit of an independent Scotland, a nation able to exercise self-determination free from the “dead hand of Westminster” which, ministers at Holyrood would argue, is stifling growth and holding Scotland back from fulfilling its potential.
By anyone’s standards, it’s a radical vision.
Having done what no party was supposed to have done last year, namely win an outright majority of its own in elections to the Scottish Parliament, the SNP and Alex Salmond seemed invisible.
Against weak opposition and with the public having given him and his party a thumping mandate suddenly nothing seemed impossible. Indeed, as recently as the beginning of this year, polling suggested a majority of Scots favoured independence.
Fast forward to today and one wonders if the mounting reality of what independence would mean is starting to dampen the radical vision for independence so often espoused by senior SNP politicians.
Firstly, under plans drawn up by the SNP, an independent Scotland would retain the pound as its currency with the London based Bank of England remaining its central bank. Is this really “independence”?
Now we have the first minister and his allies scuttling around promoting the idea that the option known as “Devo Max” under which Scotland would gain control of everything apart from foreign, defence and certain limited tax and economic powers should also be on the ballot paper.
Putting aside the fact that being able to set your own foreign and defence policy is at the very heart of the notion of national sovereignty, the first minister is now striking a lonely figure in this regard, attacked as he has been in equal measure by pro-independence campaigners Margo MacDonald, Patrick Harvie, comedian Elanie Smith and former SNP leader Gordon Wilson, all of whom have recognised and argued forcefully that the inclusion of a second question would be a “co-op” and suggest Salmond is looking for a face-saving way out of a defeat of his long held dreams of independence.
And now, in the latest sign of the impact the prospect of independence is having on the SNP we hear the party is preparing to debate at its annual conference in October its historic opposition to NATO membership, an event likely to cause substantial ruptures within the party.
• Salmond’s Yes to Independence campaign splits. Again 9 Jul 2012
• Salmond must stop moving the goalposts on Scottish independence referendum 4 Jul 2012
• Do the SNP see England as a foreign country already? 2 Jul 2012
• Salmond’s independence campaign lurches from one problem to another 19 Jun 2012
• Time for slippery Salmond to answer for his “toe-curling fawning over Rupert Murdoch” 11 Jun 2012
Emphasising the systemic shift this would be in SNP policy, the Herald’s editorial this morning concludes:
“A generation ago it would have been unthinkable for the fiercely anti-nuclear Scottish National Party to propose that an independent Scotland should join Nato.
“Yet, the party’s autumn conference will consider a motion that Scotland should remove nuclear weapons but join the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, whose ultimate deterrent in nuclear weaponry.
“Since it is to be put forward by Angus Robertson, the SNP’s Westminster leader and defence spokesman, this can be taken as the preferred policy option of the leadership. If it is agreed, it will breach a shibboleth for many of the party’s most faithful foot soldiers.
“For 30 years the SNP’s stance has been anti-Nato because the party is opposed to nuclear weapons and, as Nato is a nuclear alliance, an independent Scotland would not apply for membership. For many grassroots members and activists, especially on the left of the party, this was a point of principle and the reason for joining the SNP rather than Labour.
“Expelling Trident from Faslane and Coulport but remaining a member of Nato is a compromise solution that would leave the SNP vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy. While the party can claim it remains committed to the earliest possible withdrawal of Trident from Scotland, some experts say that removal could take up to 20 years.
“At the autumn conference, two years away from the referendum on independence, Alex Salmond and his key lieutenants will be looking beyond their membership to the wider electorate. Seeking Nato membership is a bold move on the part of Mr Salmond, in keeping with his reputation as a politician who likes to take risks. The aim will be to convince waverers that Scotland’s security will be guaranteed under independence.”
Meanwhile, comparing his situation with that of Neil Kinnock, Trevor Salmon, an emeritus professor at the University of Aberdeen, writes this morning in the Scotsman:
“This will cause enormous ructions within the SNP, as there are people within the party who think that Nato is immoral in that it has a strategy that’s dependent on nuclear weapons.
“The situation facing Alex Salmond is the one that faced Neil Kinnock in the late 1980s. Labour realised two-thirds of UK voters quite liked the nuclear deterrent.
“Although it was very hard for Kinnock to change Labour’s policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament, he realised that if the bulk of the population disagreed with you, you either change that position or stay in opposition Alex Salmond may take a similar view on the SNP’s position, but he will face stiff opposition within his own party.”
He continues:
“If there is a real prospect of Alex Salmond being defeated at this autumn’s party conference, then it is possible that he will withdraw the proposal. Of course, given this would be the second time he had done this, then that would be the end of any attempt to change the policy before the 2014 independence referendum.
“But it would be a very brave person who would attempt to take on Alex Salmond within the SNP. He is probably the only person who could bring about this change within the party.”
U-turn if you want to? The first minister is definitely for turning.
37 Responses to “Comment: Independence is denting the SNP’s radicalism”
TristanPriceWilliams
Could it be that the majority of people in Scotland, in poll after poll favour devo max. And that whilst the FM wants independence and independence only, he, unlike Cameron does actually listen to what the people are saying loud and clear. The son’t want the status quo and they don’t want complete independence.
It’s a huge disappointment to me as British foreign affairs are conducted with one eye on the White House and the other eye on…erm, the White House. And the MoD must be the most inefficient organisation in the world after G4S.
When Brits want something, Cameron seems to be prepared to give them a referendum , but exclude the option that the bulk of the population wants. Mr Salmond says that if that is what Scots want, they should probably get to vote on it.
However, as it stands the FM has said there will be one question only.
Likewise, one of the things that worried people about being independent was not being a part of NATO. Polls have shown that Scots want to be a part of Nato.
So the SNP, no longer a pressure group for a small number of people, but a government with a majority in a system designed to have no majority, has taken what the people want into consideration.
There is still however a ban on nuclear weaponry on our soil. Something that once upon a time Labour would have been overjoyed about. But as we have observed in both our parties, we must change or be lost. In your case, it was Mr Mandelson and Mr Blair who took you away from flat cap socialism into the reality of today’s Britain with an emphasis on the City and the south east of England, and which then won you 13 years of government.
Along the way, you have to admit you ditched a lot of your policies, because the bulk of the population, at least in England, quite liked Thatcherism…so you offered it, with a human face.
Surely a party that keeps its 1930s or 1950s policies or even now its 1980s policies will wither on the vine… Il faut changer pour vivre!
Ed Jacobs
RT @leftfootfwd: Comment: Independence is denting the SNP's radicalism http://t.co/5AMucySd
Aberdonian Exile
I think the real problem Scotland has is that there is now widespread support in England for pushing it into complete independence. Working in southern England I am all too aware of the antipathy towards Scotland and I doubt that devomax will be acceptable to English MPs. It will be a case of stick with what you have or go. You can forget about retaining the pound; the remainder of the UK will not take responsibility for potentially irresponsible spending by left wing governments in Scotland.
In defence terms I very much doubt that much military equipment or personnel will be handed to Scotland (expect the Royal Regiment of Scotland to remain in the UK order of battle and to continue recruiting from Scotland, although I suspect it might be reduced to 2 or 3 battalions). After all there is still an Irish regiment in the British Army. Similarly, I cannot see major naval vessels being ceded and of course it will mark an end to shipbuilding orders on the Clyde. BAE is already planning on building future major vessels at Barrow or Portsmouth. With such a miniscule defence base I would expect hi-tech companies like Selex to move south of the border. Essentially Scotland will end up with small forces like Ireland and any Scots contribution to NATO is likely to be so minor as to make no real difference.
Of course joining the EU has its own issues. Entering the Schengen area will inevitably lead to border posts and passport controls between England and Scotland, and the EU is now making membership of new states conditional on acceptance of the Euro as national currency. But I guess the SNP would rather be run by the Germans and French (just like the Irish) rather than share a parliament in Westminster. where they have some influence
As far as nuclear weapons are concerned the SNP seems to think it has trump card with Faslane. I doubt it. There is room for the Trident boats at Devonport, plus local weapons storage there. There is a sizeable nuclear weapons storage location at Burghfield in Berkshire and also at various airbase since the RAF lost its tactical nuclear weapons. Devonport has a nuclear submarine repair and maintenance facility. And the French have intimated they would share their facilities if necessary, as a move towards a joint EU deterrent. So joining NATO but refusing to have nuclear weapons on Scots territory is actually largely irrelevant. In fact you have to wonder if the UK will even particularly welcome Scotland within the alliance since it just adds another member to what is now largely a talking shop. If the EU deterrent takes off then Scotland will be seen by many as failing to contribute (its base) despite benefitting from the nuclear force. Free riders are not always well liked.
What Scotland needs to accept is that outside the UK it will be a very minor player on the European and international stage, in fact little more than a backwater like New Zealand or Ecuador, with minute influence and potentially vulnerable to commercial and economic pressure from the big boys. The loss of Scotland will make little difference to the rest of the UK and will clearly be welcome in many quarters, not least by the Conservatives who will be delighted at the loss of 40+ Labour seats. By all means leave, but don’t expect an easy ride.
Mr. Sensible
Reality is catching up with Salmond.
Anonymous
DevoMax is a question for the Union as a whole, though, unlike independence. And I don’t support it. A properly Federal UK, yes, but not “DevoMax” – it’s cherry picking advantages.
Also, I have to disagree on the timing issue… The 1950’s was Labour’s peak time for a reason. Modern Labour is…very different.